We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
CONSTRUCTION--MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION--CONNECTICUT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT--BROAD CLAUSE--PUBLIC POLICY--ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT--ARBITRABILITY--CONNECTICUT.
- Abstract
This article focuses on the court case Bill Butler Associates v. New England Savings Bank. Bill Butler Associates and the New England Savings Bank were parties to a construction contrast containing a broad arbitration clause. Butler subsequently filed on action alleging claims arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) against the bank, which moved to compel arbitration. The court determined that if could not enforce an arbitration agreement when its enforcement would violate a well defined and dominant public policy. If reviewed CUTPA and found that the legislature intended that CUTPA's provisions be enforceable only in civil actions. It also noted that several provisions conferred powers and imposed duties on the commissioner of consumer protection, an indication that CUTPA was designed to achieve protection for the consuming public. The court refused to enforce the parties' arbitration agreement because the claims underlying the action are enforceable only in a judicial forum.
- Subjects
UNITED States; NEW England Savings Bank (Company); BILL Butler Associates (Company); UNFAIR competition; LABOR arbitration; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law)
- Publication
Arbitration Journal, 1993, Vol 48, Issue 1, p89
- ISSN
0003-7893
- Publication type
Article